Digital Video Goes To Trial

Share This article

Through improvements in their imaging sensors, Micron Technology and its rivals are improving the quality of digital video that is increasingly being used as evidence in court. But what good is digital evidence in the age of Jurassic Park?

This week, Micron Technology unveiled several lines of video sensors, some of which the company hopes will be adopted by security systems. Images from those security and surveillance cameras are increasingly being used as evidence, where judges and juries are being asked to weigh the video to assess the strength of a case.

Not surprisingly, both lawyers and industry executives say that increases in resolution will provide more convincing proof of whether a defendant is or is not guilty. But digital video that can be stored on a hard drive and reviewed on a moment’s notice is also being used in interesting new ways.

From a product perspective, imaging chips used in security cameras still lag behind their counterparts used in consumer digital camcorders and still image cameras.

This week, Micron unveiled the MT9T031and MT9P031, 3- and 5-Mpixel securit camera sensors designed to be used with a fisheye lens. A second sensor, the MT9V032, allows close to 100 db dynamic range, useful for low-light environments; rival Pixim announced a sensor with about 120 db of range. Other sensors use electronic pan and zoom to allow remotely-controlled cameras to sweep an area without needing to move the camera housing.

Paul Gallagher, director of imaging technology for Micron, compared the security sensor market to the cell-phone camera market of a few years ago. “The customer experience is poor,” he said. “The problem with that resolution is that I can see what you’re doing, or I can see who you are, but not both.”

In a court case, however, identifying a suspect in a criminal case or a wayward spouse in a civil suit can make the difference between winning or losing the case. Usually, video is used for illustrative purposes, identifying a subject that an actual witness claims is there. Using the video allows the jury to confirm the information for themselves, making that testimony that much more valuable, attorneys said.

“Any kind of exhibit that’s presented, whether it be photograph or video, needs to be truthful and accurate,” said Lee Rosen, president of the Lee Rosen Law Firm in Raleigh, N.C. “The foundational requirement that’s asked is whether this video is a truthful and accurate depiction of what it portrays, what it looked like at the time that picture came into evidence.”

In an operation like a stakeout, a police officer or private investigator can testify as to its accuracy. As long as the video or image meets those criteria, then the jury can assess its quality – a low resolution lessens its evidentiary quality, Rosen said.Continued…

Use of this site is governed by our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Copyright 1996-2015 Ziff Davis, LLC.PCMag Digital Group All Rights Reserved. ExtremeTech is a registered trademark of Ziff Davis, LLC. Reproduction in whole or in part in any form or medium without express written permission of Ziff Davis, LLC. is prohibited.